ÿWPCú  …# VUNa %¯ 0(µLÝw@) 4i } Œ U:” 0lÎ 0D: 0J~ 0TÈ 0^ 0hz 0râ 0|T 0†Ð 0V Bæ 1u 0dx D3ÜU> 0@MU6B)ÃDCì AM/U *|ä¦*Šœ´¡Pñv~vÓ‚ AOUƤ 0Dj D/® BÝ ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT ùDúDûPüDýþDÿDÓ€Ô¡¨ 3|x , øð AZ‹"Arial Regular((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd€-0Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ÚÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÔ€2ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€2XÔÌÌSeptember€19,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€2ÔÔ€2ôÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€The€defendant€concedes€that€there€is€sufficient€corroboration€as€to€Counts€Five€and€Eight.Ì ’Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€2ÔÔ€2ôÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€Ms.€Green€testified€that€Little€Mike€was€Ms.€Greenððs€best€friendððs€boyfriend€and€that€the€two€ofÏthem€had€been€friendly€for€years.€€Little€Mike€told€Ms.€Green€that€Jazz€(Officer€Watsonððs€codename)€was€aÏgood€friend€of€his€that€worked€with€him.€€He€also€told€Ms.€Green€that€Jazz€wished€to€purchase€one€ounceÏof€cocaine.€€Ms.€Green€refused€at€first€but€after€contacting€her€friend€Alvin€Hall,€agreed€to€purchase€theÏcocaine€from€the€defendant€for€Jazz.€Ì —Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€2ÔÔ€2ôÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€Ms.€Green€also€testified€that€the€defendant€was€her€only€source€of€cocaine,€however,€underÏcross„examination,€she€admitted€that€she€had€obtained€small€amounts€of€cocaine€from€other€sources€on€aÏfew€occasions.€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€2ÔÔ€2ôÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€Alvin€Hall€and€two€other€men€were€also€present€at€this€transaction.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑòòÔ€.ÔßL€130;+'h|` ç `€€Lß›à@ àÔ€2ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóà@ àòòÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEóóÌÓ` °‡XœÈ“XÓà@ àFEBRUARY€1995€SESSIONÌÌÓ ` °†Xœƒ,x‘X ÓÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.€No.€01C01„9407„CR„00235€Ïà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAPPELLEE,à àà à)à àDAVIDSON€COUNTY€Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àœHon.›€Walter€C.€œKurtz›€Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ÌJAMES€MICHAEL€œPITTS,à à›€œà à)›à à(Three€counts€of€Delivery€of€Cocaine€inÏà àà àà àà àà à)à àexcess€of€.5€grams;€four€counts€ofÏDelivery€à àà àAPPELLANT.à à)à àof€Cocaine€in€excess€of€26€grams,€andÏone€à àà àà àà àà à)à àcount€of€Delivery€of€Cocaine€in€excessÏof€à àà àà àà àà à)à à300€grams)€Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÓÓÌòòFor€the€Appellant:óóà àà àà àòòà àFor€the€Appellee:óóÌÓÓòòOn€œAppeal›à àà àà àà àóóà àCharles€W.€BursonòòÌóóMichael€J.€Flanaganà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌDale€M.€QuillenÌ95€White€Bridge€Roadà àà àà àCharlotte€H.€RappuhnÌSuite€208à àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌNashville,€TN€37205òòà àóóà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌòòà àà àà àà àà àóóà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493òòÌAt€œTrial›à àà àà àÌóóœLionel›€œR.€Barrett,›€Jr.à àà àà àœVictor›€S.€Johnson€IIIÌAttorney€at€Lawà àà àà àà àDistrict€AttorneyÌ222€Second€Avenue€NorthÌNashville,€Tennessee€œ37201›à àà àœJohn›€Zimmermanà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWashington€Square€Bldg.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à222€2nd€Ave.,€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37201„1649Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà àà à€€€ÌÓÓÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌAFFIRMED€œIN€PART;›€REVERSED€AND€DISMISSED€œIN€PART›ÌœREX€HENRY€OGLE,€SPECIAL€JUDGE›à àœÌÌ›ÌÑ7€ ¶‹ XXdæXXdì7Ñà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌà àà àOn€March€18,€1993,€James€Michael€Pitts€was€indicted€by€a€DavidsonÏCounty€Grand€Jury,€as€follows:€Counts€One,€Two,€and€Three,€Delivery€in€excess€of€.5Ïgrams€of€cocaine;€Counts€Four,€Five,€Six,€and€Seven,€Delivery€in€excess€of€26€gramsÏof€cocaine;€and€Count€Eight,€Delivery€in€excess€of€300€grams€of€cocaine.€€The€caseÏwas€tried€before€a€jury€on€December€1,€1993,€and€the€jury€returned€a€verdict€of€guiltyÏon€all€counts€of€the€Indictment.Ìà àÌà àà àOn€February€18,1994,€the€Trial€Court€sentenced€the€defendant€asÏfollows:ÌÌÓÓœà à(1)›€€Count€One:€€Eighteen€years,€Range€Two,€Multiple€Offender,€$20,000€fine.€ÌÌà à(2)€€Count€Two:€€Eighteen€years,€Range€Two,€Multiple€Offender,€$4,000€fine.€ÌÌà à(3)€€Count€Three:€€Eighteen€years,€Range€Two,€Multiple€Offender,€$1,000€fine.€ÌÌà à(4)€€Count€Four:€€Eighteen€years,€Range€Two,€Multiple€Offender,€$20,000€fine.€ÌÌà à(5)€€Count€Five:€€Eighteen€years,€Range€Two,€Multiple€Offender,€$2,000€fine.€ÌÌà à(6)€€Count€Six:€€Eighteen€years,€Range€Two,€Multiple€Offender,€$1,000€fine.€ÌÌà à(7)€€Count€Seven:€€Eighteen€years,€Range€Two,€Multiple€Offender,€$2,000€fine.ÌÌà à(8)€€Count€Eight:€€Twenty„Two€years,€Range€œOne,€Standard›€œOffenderÔ€,Ô,›€$50,000Ïfine.Ì€ÌÓÓÌà àà àÔ€2ÔCounts€One,€Two,€and€Three€are€to€be€served€concurrently€with€eachÏother€but€consecutively€to€the€sentence€the€defendant€was€already€serving.€€CountsÏFour€and€Five€were€ordered€to€be€served€concurrently€with€each€other€butÏconsecutively€to€Counts€One,€Two,€and€Three.€€The€sentences€in€Counts€Six€andÏSeven€were€ordered€to€be€served€concurrently€with€each€other€but€consecutively€toÏCounts€Four€and€Five.€€The€sentence€in€Count€Eight€was€ordered€to€be€servedÏconsecutively€to€Counts€Six€and€Seven.€€The€defendantððs€aggregate€sentence€isÏSeventy„Six€years€and€a€fine€of€$100,000.ÌÌà àà àIn€this€appeal€as€of€right,€the€defendant€makes€two€claims.€€First,€heÏcontends€that€there€was€insufficient€corroboration€of€the€accomplicesðð€testimony€toÏsupport€a€conviction€with€regard€to€Counts€One,€Two,€Three,€Four,€Six,€and€Seven.× ƒ4 ××  ×€ÏSecond,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€testimony€relating€toÏother€crimes€or€uncharged€conduct€committed€by€the€defendant.€€We€agree€with€theÍdefendant€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€as€to€Counts€One,€Three,€Four,€Six,€andÏSeven,€thus,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed€and€dismissed€as€to€theseÏcounts.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€as€to€Counts€Two,€Five,€and€Eight.ÌÌà àà àIn€September,€1991,€Officer€Nicky€Watson€was€contacted€by€OfficerÏPhillip€Taylor€regarding€a€Davidson€County€Drug€Task€Force€undercover€operation.€ÏThe€target€of€the€operation€was€the€defendant,€œJames€Michael›€Pitts.€€The€Task€ForceÏhad€received€information€that€Darlene€Green€was€being€supplied€cocaine€by€theÏdefendant.€€Therefore,€Officer€Watsonððs€objective€was€to€get€near€the€defendantÏthrough€Ms.€Green€with€the€help€of€an€informant€known€as€Little€Mike.Ìà àÌà àà àOfficer€Watsonððs€first€encounter€with€Ms.€Green€occurred€in€September,Ï1991,€after€Little€Mike€ordered€one€ounce€of€cocaine€from€Ms.€Green.× ƒ5 ××  ×€€Officer€WatsonÏmet€with€Ms.€Green€in€a€driveway€at€Revels€Street€in€Nashville€to€discuss€the€price€ofÏthe€ounce€of€cocaine€and€concluded€that€a€price€of€$1,200€was€fair.€€On€September€6,Ï1991,€Officer€Watson€met€with€Ms.€Green€to€make€the€transaction.€€Officer€WatsonÏhanded€Ms.€Green€a€green€shopping€bag€with€$1,200€in€it.€€Ms.€Green€took€the€moneyÏand€said€she€would€be€back€in€a€few€minutes.€€Ms.€Green€testified€that€she€went€to€theÍdefendantððs€residence€to€obtain€the€cocaine.× ƒ6 ××  ×€€Ms.€Green€later€returned€to€the€sceneÏwith€one€ounce€of€cocaine€in€the€green€paper€bag,€and€the€exchange€was€made.€€TheÏDrug€Task€Force€equipped€Officer€Watson€with€both€a€tape€recorder€and€a€body€wireÏso€that€a€surveillance€team€could€hear€and€tape€the€transaction€between€OfficerÏWatson€and€Ms.€Green.Ìà àÌà àà àOn€September€11,€1991,€Little€Mike€contacted€Ms.€Green€about€makingÏanother€purchase€of€cocaine.€€This€transaction€was€very€similar€to€the€first€except€inÏthree€significant€regards.€€Like€the€first€transaction,€Ms.€Green€agreed€to€sell€one€ounceÏof€cocaine€to€Jazz,€but€this€time,€she€wanted€and€received€$1,300.€€Like€the€firstÏtransaction,€the€transaction€was€recorded,€and€Ms.€Green€took€the€money€and€then€leftÏto€get€the€cocaine,€but€in€this€situation,€Officer€Watson€saw€Ms.€Green€drive€away€downÏLane€Court€(the€cul„de„sac€on€which€the€defendant€and€Ms.€Green€lived)€and€returnÏminutes€later€with€an€ounce€of€cocaine€which€she€testified€she€had€obtained€from€theÏdefendantððs€house.€€In€addition,€she€told€the€defendant€that€she€was€obtaining€theÏcocaine€for€her€uncle.€€Unlike€the€first€transaction,€Alvin€Hall€went€with€Ms.€Green€to€theÏdrug€transaction€with€Officer€Watson€and€testified€that€the€money€was€returned€to€theÏdefendant.Ìà àÌà àà àBoth€the€third€and€fourth€transactions€were€practically€identical.€€OnÏSeptember€15€and€21,€1991,€Officer€Watson€contacted€Ms.€Green€regarding€otherÍcocaine€sales.€€These€transactions€had€both€similarities€and€differences€to€the€first€twoÏtransactions.€€Like€the€second€transaction,€one€ounce€of€cocaine€was€sold€to€OfficerÏWatson€for€$1,300,€the€transaction€was€recorded,€Alvin€Hall€was€present,€and€Ms.ÏGreen€claims€to€have€obtained€the€cocaine€form€the€defendant.€€Unlike€the€otherÏtransactions,€these€took€place€in€a€church€parking€lot,€and€this€time,€Ms.€Green€had€theÏcocaine€with€her€so€there€was€no€delay.Ìà àÌà àà àOn€September€26,€1991,€Officer€Watson€contacted€Ms.€Green€aboutÏpurchasing€two€ounces€of€cocaine€for€$2,600.€€The€tape„recorded€transaction€tookÏplace€once€again€in€the€church€parking€lot,€and€Ms.€Green€had€the€cocaine€with€her.× ƒ7 ××  ×€ÏMs.€Green€testified€once€again€that€she€obtained€the€cocaine€from€the€defendantððsÏhouse.€€In€response€to€Officer€Watsonððs€requests€to€find€out€the€identity€of€Ms.€GreenððsÏsupplier,€Ms.€Green€enclosed€an€envelope€with€the€defendantððs€address€on€it€in€theÏsack€of€cocaine.€€In€addition,€Officer€Rigsby€testified€that€he€saw€Ms.€Green€go€to€theÏdefendantððs€house€and€return€with€a€brown€paper€sack.€The€cocaine€delivered€by€Ms.ÏGreen€to€Officer€Watson€was€in€a€brown€paper€sack.Ìà àÌà àà àThe€sixth€tape„recorded€transaction€was€similar€to€the€fifth.€€On€October€2,Ï1991,€Officer€Watson€contacted€Ms.€Green€about€the€sale€of€two€ounces€of€cocaine€forÏ$2,600.€€The€meeting€took€place€at€the€church€parking€lot,€but€when€Ms.€Green€spottedÏa€police€car€in€the€area,€she,€Mr.€Hall,€and€another€male€took€Officer€Watson€to€aÏnearby€apartment€complex€to€complete€the€transaction.€€Ms.€Green€once€again€testifiedÍthat€she€obtained€the€drugs€from€the€defendant.€Ìà àÌà àà àImmediately€following€the€transaction,€Officer€Watson€requested€anotherÏtwo€ounces€(in€exchange€for€$2,600),€and€six€days€later€the€seventh€tape„recordedÏtransaction€took€place€at€an€Exxon€gas€station.€€Ms.€Green€and€Mr.€Hall€both€testifiedÏthat€they€obtained€the€drugs€from€the€defendant€at€a€nearby€Burger€King.Ìà àÌà àà àOn€January€11,€1991,€the€defendant€contacted€the€narcotics€squad€andÏindicated€he€wanted€to€talk€with€them.€€Oblivious€to€the€fact€that€he€was€a€target€of€theirÏinvestigation,€the€defendant€indicated€that€he€wanted€to€help€the€police€by€telling€themÏabout€his€drug€suppliers,€Lee€Staples€and€Paul€Woods.€€He€explained€that€Mr.€StaplesÏwould€supply€him€with€drugs€in€excess€of€half€a€kilo€of€cocaine€at€a€time.€€€€Ìà àÌà àà àOn€January€13,€1992,€Officer€Watson€contacted€Ms.€Green€aboutÏpurchasing€half€a€kilo€of€cocaine€for€$17,000.€€They€agreed€to€meet€on€January€25,Ï1991.€€But,€the€meeting€and€transaction€never€took€place€because€when€OfficerÏWatson€had€not€arrived€10€minutes€after€the€agreed€upon€time,€Ms.€Green€and€Mr.€HallÏleft.€€Ms.€Green€testified€that€she€obtained€the€cocaine€from€the€defendant€in€seventeenÏone€ounce€baggies€but€later€returned€the€baggies€of€cocaine€to€him€when€the€deal€fellÏthrough.€€This€testimony€is€supported€by€a€video€recording€taken€by€Officer€Rigsby€ofÏMs.€Green€walking€over€to€the€defendantððs€house€and€leaving€with€a€brown€paper€sackÏand€later€in€the€day€returning€to€the€defendantððs€house€with€a€similar€looking€sack.Ìà àÌà àà àAfter€this€last€transaction,€the€police,€led€by€Sergeant€McWright€andÏOfficer€Eddings,€obtained€search€warrants€and€searched€both€Ms.€Greenððs€and€theÏdefendantððs€houses.€€They€did€not€discover€any€drugs€or€drug€paraphernalia€in€Ms.ÏGreenððs€house.€€When€they€arrived€at€the€defendantððs€house,€the€defendant€answeredÏthe€door€and€was€read€his€Miranda€rights.€€According€to€Sergeant€McWright,€theÏdefendant€exclaimed€ð ðyou€can€search.€€Thereððs€nothing€here.€€I€flushed€what€I€had.€€IÏknew€you€were€coming.ðð€€In€their€search,€the€police€found€seventeen€cut€open,€washedÏbaggies€in€the€sink,€a€revolver,€a€sophisticated€security€system,€and€expensiveÏelectronics€equipment.Ì€€€€€€€€òòò òÌà àóóó óà àIn€his€first€issue,€the€defendant€asserts€that€he€should€not€have€beenÏconvicted€of€these€crimes€because€there€was€no€evidence€to€support€the€testimony€ofÏDarlene€Green€and€œAlvin›€Hall,€his€accomplices.€€This€claim€is€based€upon€the€generalÏproposition€that€a€defendant€cannot€be€convicted€upon€the€uncorroborated€testimonyÏof€accomplices.€€òòSherrill€v.€Stateóó,€204€Tenn.€427,€321€S.W.2d€811€(1959);€òòPrince€v.ÏStateóó,€529€S.W.2d€729,€732€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975).€€An€accomplice€is€defined€as€aÏperson€who€knowingly,€voluntarily,€and€with€common€intent€with€the€principal€offers€toÏunite€in€the€commission€of€a€crime.€€òòClapp€v.€Stateóó,€94€Tenn.€186,€188,€30€S.W.€214,Ï216€(1895);€€òòLetner€v.€Stateóó,€512€S.W.2d€643,€647€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1974).€Ìà àÌà àà àThe€rule€is€that€there€must€be€some€fact€testified€to€which€is€entirelyÏindependent€of€an€accomplice's€testimony;€that€fact,€taken€by€itself,€must€lead€to€anÏinference€that€a€crime€has€been€committed€and€that€the€defendant€is€responsibleÍtherefor.€€òòState€v.€Fowleróó,€213€Tenn.€239,€373€S.W.2d€460,€463€(1963).€€ThisÏrequirement€is€met€if€the€corroborative€evidence€fairly€and€legitimately€tends€to€connectÏthe€accused€with€the€commission€of€the€crime€charged.€€òòMarshall€v.€Stateóó,€497€S.W.2dÏ761,€765€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973).€€Only€slight€circumstances€are€required€to€furnishÏthe€necessary€corroboration.€€òòGarton€v.€Stateóó,€206€Tenn.€79,€332€S.W.2d€169,€175Ï(1960).€€To€be€corroborative,€the€evidence€need€not€be€adequate€in€and€of€itself€toÏconvict.€€òòConner€v.€Stateóó,€531€S.W.2d€119€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975).Ìà àÌà àà àThe€rationale€for€this€rule€relating€to€corroboration€is€stated€in€the€case€of€ÏòòState€v.€Eadsóó,€No.€01C01„9307„CC„00229,€1995€WL€382440€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€JuneÏ28,€1995).€€In€òòEadsóó,€this€œCourt,›€quoting€œWigmore,›€stated€that€ð ðthe€reasons€which€haveÏled€to€the€distrust€of€accomplices€testimony€are€not€far€to€seek.€€He€may€expect€to€saveÏhimself€from€punishment€by€procuring€the€conviction€of€others...€€It€is€true€that€thisÏpromise€of€immunity€or€leniency€is€usually€denied,€and€may€not€exist;€but€it€is€alwaysÏsuspected.€€The€essential€element,€however,€must€be€remembered,€is€this€supposedÏpromise€or€expectation€of€clemency.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€*5€(quoting€3A€WIGMORE,€EVIDENCEÏSec.€2057€at€417€(Chadbourn€rev.€1970)).ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€makes€two€interrelated€arguments€with€respect€toÏsufficient€corroboration.€€First,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€inappropriatelyÏbootstrapped€all€of€the€counts€against€him.€€As€a€result,€the€trial€court€erroneouslyÏallowed€corroboration€evidence€from€Counts€Five€and€Eight€to€be€used€to€corroborateÏon€the€other€six€counts.€€Second,€the€defendant€argues€that€since€the€State€presentedÍno€corroborative€evidence€relating€to€Counts€One,€Two,€Three,€Four,€Six,€and€Seven,Ïhe€should€have€been€acquitted€on€these€counts.ÌÌà àà àIn€response,€the€State€claims€that€since€the€defendantððs€multiple€offensesÏarise€out€of€a€pattern€of€similar€conduct,€that€corroboration€from€two€counts€can€beÏused€as€corroboration€for€the€other€counts.€€The€State€relies€on€the€case€of€òòBethany€v.ÏStateóó.€€565€S.W.2d€œ90›œ0›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€We€find€that€òòBethanyóó€is€factuallyÏdistinguishable€and€that€the€reasoning€in€òòBethanyóó€should€not€be€extended€to€the€caseÏat€hand.ÌÌà àà àIn€òòBethanyóó,€this€Court€held€that€ð ðin€prosecution€for€engaging€in€fellatioÏwith€six€of€seven€boys€who€defendant€took€on€a€camp„out,€the€testimony€of€the€seventhÏboy,€who€did€not€participate€in€any€offense,€that€he€saw€defendant€commit€offensesÏupon€four€of€the€six€boys€was€sufficient€to€corroborate€the€testimony€of€the€allegedÏaccomplices€as€to€those€four€offenses€and€could€be€considered€corroborativeÏevidenceðð€for€the€other€two€counts.€€òòBethanyóó,€565€S.W.2d€at€904.ÌÌà àà àòòBethany€v.€Stateóó€is€distinguishable€from€the€case€at€hand€in€manyÏrespects.€€In€òòBethanyóó,€(1)€the€defendant€was€actually€seen€committing€the€crime€on€fourÏof€the€six€boys;€(2)€the€defendant€took€the€boys€on€a€camp€outing;€(3)€the€crimes€allÏtook€place€at€the€same€camp€outing,€and€(4)€the€defendant€was€the€sole€adult€at€theÏcamp.€€òòId.óó€at€901„902.€€In€the€case€at€hand,€the€defendant€(1)€was€never€seenÏsupplying€any€drugs€to€Ms.€Green,€and€in€fact,€there€was€not€even€any€corroborativeÍevidence€that€the€defendant€was€even€home€when€the€transactions€took€place;€(2)€Ms.ÏGreen€testified€that€she€had€obtained€drugs€from€people€other€than€the€defendant;€andÏ(3)€the€events€transpired€over€a€four€month€period.€€It€appears€that€the€level€of€theÏcorroborative€evidence€in€the€case€at€hand€fails€to€rise€to€the€level€found€in€òòBethanyóó,Ïand€thus,€under€òòBethanyóó,€the€evidence€in€this€case€does€not€constitute€sufficientÏcorroboration.ÌÌà àà àThe€next€question€which€must€be€addressed€is€whether€the€reasoning€ofÏòòBethanyóó€should€be€extended€to€the€case€at€hand.€€This€involves€an€analysis€of€both€theÏdegree€in€which€òòBethanyóó€has€been€extended€by€later€case€law€and€the€consistency€ofÏthe€òòBethanyóó€rationale€with€respect€to€the€law€concerning€the€corroboration€ofÏaccomplice€testimony.€€In€the€case€of€òòState€v.€Streetóó,€this€Court€refused€to€extend€theÏòòBethanyóó€analysis€to€a€larceny€case€finding€that€corroboration€established€in€oneÏlarceny€is€not€permitted€to€serve€as€corroboration€for€other€larcenies.€€òòState€v.€Streetóó,ÏNo.€56,€(Tenn.€Crim€App.€Jan€9,€1984).€€€ÌÌà àà àBecause€òòBethanyóó€has€not€been€extended,€we€must€look€to€generalÏprinciples€concerning€corroborative€evidence€and€the€law€in€general.€€As€mentionedÏabove,€an€accompliceððs€testimony€requires€independent€and€sufficient€corroborationÏfor€each€count€charged€against€the€defendant.€€òòState€v.€Fowleróó,€373€S.W.2d€460,€463.€ÏThe€purpose€of€this€requirement€is€to€prevent€the€piling€up€of€charges€against€aÏdefendant€with€a€bad€reputation€by€an€accomplice€who€hopes€to€get€a€reducedÏsentence.€€òòEadsóó,€1995€WL€at€*5.€€Therefore,€this€requirement€shuns€the€ððbootstrappingððÍof€charges.€€In€addition,€the€State€is€required€to€prove€every€element€of€every€crimeÏcharged,€and€this€burden€specifically€includes€the€identity€of€the€defendant€as€theÏperson€who€committed€the€crime€for€which€he€is€tried.€€òòState€v.€Dyleóó,€899€S.W.2dÏ607,612€(Tenn.€1995).€€Allowing€this€type€of€ððbootstrappingðð€would€violate€thisÏrequirement€by€allowing€a€defendant€to€be€convicted€of€a€crime€solely€on€the€testimonyÏof€an€accomplice€for€which€the€State€presented€no€independent€evidence€toÏcorroborate€the€defendantððs€guilt.€€Therefore,€the€òòBethanyóó€analysis€cannot€be€extendedÏto€the€case€at€hand,€and€the€State€was€required€to€present€independent€corroborativeÏevidence€of€the€testimony€of€Ms.€Green€and€Mr.€Hall€for€each€of€the€eight€counts€onÏwhich€the€defendant€is€charged.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àAs€discussed€above,€in€order€to€sufficiently€corroborate€the€testimony€ofÏan€accessory€there€must€exist€evidence€which€is€entirely€independent€of€anÏaccomplice's€testimony;€that€fact,€taken€by€itself,€must€lead€to€an€inference€that€a€crimeÏhas€been€committed€and€that€the€defendant€is€responsible€therefor.€€òòState€v.€Fowleróó,Ï373€S.W.2d€460,€463.€€To€be€sufficient,€the€corroborative€evidence€need€only€be€slight.€ÏòòGarton€v.€Stateóó,€332€S.W.2d€169,€175.Ìà àÌà àà àIn€the€case€of€òòState€v.€Fowleróó,€the€state€produced€sufficient€corroborativeÏevidence€by€showing€that€the€defendant€was€seen€talking€with€the€three€otherÏaccomplices,€the€defendantððs€car€was€identified€near€the€crime€scene,€and€witnessesÏsaw€four€men€drive€away€with€the€stolen€truck.€€373€S.W.2d€at€463.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó,€òòState€v.ÏCopelandóó,€677€S.W.2d€471,€475€€(the€defendant€was€seen€going€to€the€accessoryððsÍhouse€to€pick€him€up€right€before€the€incident);€òòState€v.€Sparksóó,€727€S.W.2d€480,€483Ï(Tenn.€1987)€€(testimony€of€two€officers€who€overheard€the€telephone€call€between€theÏdefendant€and€the€accomplice)€;€and€òòProctor€v.€Stateóó,€565€S.W.2d€909,€914„915€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1978)€(the€defendant€was€positively€identified€by€the€robbery€victim).€ÌÌà àà àIn€cases€in€which€the€state€only€produced€a€scintilla€of€corroborativeÏevidence,€the€courts€have€held€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€as€a€matter€of€law.€ÏFor€example,€in€the€case€of€òòMathis€v.€Stateóó,€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€witnessÏtestimony€that€the€defendant€was€in€the€vicinity€of€the€murder€scene€was€not€sufficient.€Ï590€S.W.2d€œ449,›€454„455€(Tenn.€1979).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó,€òòGable€v.€Stateóó,€519€S.W.2d€83,€84„85€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1974)€(the€fact€that€the€defendant€gave€his€jacks€to€two€men€whoÏwere€stealing€someoneððs€car€was€insufficient€where€there€was€no€evidence€alluding€toÏthe€fact€that€the€defendant€knew€the€men€were€stealing€the€car);€and€òòBoaz€v.€Stateóó,€537ÏS.W.2d€716,€718€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975)€(testimony€that€the€defendant€left€in€theÏdirection€of€the€accomplices€home€was€insufficient).€€Therefore,€the€State€must€presentÏmore€than€just€a€scintilla€of€corroborative€evidence€to€send€the€issue€to€a€jury.€€Ìà àÌà àà àThe€defendant€concedes€that€there€exists€sufficient€corroboration€as€toÏCounts€Five€and€Eight.€€With€respect€to€Count€Five,€the€state€presented€corroborativeÏevidence€that€the€cocaine€delivered€from€Darlene€Green€to€Officer€Watson€wasÏcontained€in€a€brown€sack€which€also€included€an€envelope€addressed€to€theÏdefendant.€€This€transaction€arose€after€numerous€requests€by€Officer€Watson€to€findÏout€the€identity€of€Ms.€Greenððs€supplier.€€In€addition,€to€further€corroborate€the€testimonyÍof€Ms.€Green€and€Alvin€Hall,€the€state€presented€the€testimony€of€Officer€Rigsby€whoÏsaw€Ms.€Green€go€to€the€defendantððs€house€and€return€with€a€brown€paper€sack.€€TheÏcocaine€was€then€delivered€in€a€brown€paper€sack.€€This€corroborative€evidence€wasÏcorrectly€judged€sufficient€by€the€trial€court,€and€thus,€the€juryððs€verdict€with€respect€toÏCount€Five€must€be€affirmed.€Ìà àÌà àà àWith€respect€to€Count€Eight,€the€state€presented€evidence€of€videoÏsurveillance€taken€by€the€police€showing€Ms.€Green€walking€to€the€defendantððs€houseÏto€obtain€cocaine€and€then€returning€later€that€day.€€In€addition,€during€the€search€ofÏthe€defendantððs€house,€the€police€found€seventeen€empty€plastic€baggies.€œDarlene›ÏGreen€testified€that€she€had€obtained€17€one€ounce€baggies€of€cocaine€from€theÏdefendant€and€then€had€returned€them€to€him€when€she€got€nervous€about€theÏœtransaction.›€€Also,€when€the€police€executed€a€search€warrant€at€the€defendantððsÏhouse,€the€defendant€told€them€he€had€flushed€what€he€had€down€the€toilet.€€ThisÏevidence€was€clearly€sufficient€to€corroborate€the€accomplicesðð€testimony€as€to€thisÏcount.€€€Therefore,€the€verdict€of€the€jury€must€be€affirmed€at€to€Count€Eight.Ìà àÌà àà àWith€respect€to€Count€Two,€the€state€presented€testimony€by€OfficerÏWatson€that€he€saw€Ms.€Green€drive€down€Lane€Court€(the€cul„de„sac€on€which€theÏdefendant€lived)€and€then€minutes€later€return€with€one€ounce€of€cocaine.€€ThisÏevidence€by€itself€is€œweak,›€especially€since€Ms.€Green€lived€on€the€same€street.€€ButÏwhen€this€evidence€is€coupled€with€the€fact€that€the€defendant€admitted€to€the€policeÏthat€he€was€a€drug€dealer€and€œwith€the›€fact€that€the€search€of€Ms.€Greenððs€house€didÍnot€produce€even€a€trace€of€evidence€of€drugs,€it€is€sufficient€to€serve€corroborativeÏpurposes.€€It€is€not€necessary€that€corroborative€evidence€be€adequate€in€and€of€itselfÏto€convict.€€òòMcKinney€v.€Stateóó,€552€S.W.2d€787,€789.€€This€Court€in€the€case€ofÏòòMcKinney€v.€Stateóó€stated€that€ð ðthe€question€of€corroboration€of€an€accompliceððsÏtestimony€is€for€the€jury€to€determine.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€789.€€As€long€as€there€exists€someÏcorroborative€evidence€for€which€a€jury€can€reasonably€infer€a€connection€between€theÏdefendant€and€the€crime,€the€sanctity€of€the€juryððs€decision€must€be€preserved.€€òòId.óó€atÏ789„90.€€Therefore,€the€juryððs€verdict€with€respect€to€Count€Two€must€be€affirmed.Ìà àÌà àà àWith€respect€to€the€other€counts,€the€state€merely€presents€asÏcorroborative€evidence€the€admission€of€the€defendant€that€he€was€a€drug€dealer.€€ThisÏevidence€does€not€meet€the€requirement€that€corroborative€evidence€must€specificallyÏlink€the€defendant€to€the€specific€crime.€€Holding€that€this€type€of€evidence€is€sufficientÏto€corroborate€multiple€counts€would€effectively€eliminate€the€requirement€ofÏcorroborative€proof.€€Because€the€state€failed€to€present€any€corroboration€of€Ms.ÏGreenððs€testimony€as€to€these€counts,€the€convictions€cannot€stand.€€Thus,€theÏdefendantððs€convictions€with€regards€to€Counts€One,€Three,€Four,€Six,€and€Seven€areÏreversed€and€dismissed.ÌÌà àà àIn€the€defendantððs€second€issue,€he€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏallowing€the€testimony€of€Officer€Berryman€relating€to€other€crimes€or€bad€actsÏcommitted€by€the€defendant€to€be€presented€to€the€jury.€€It€is€the€defendantððs€contentionÏthat€this€evidence€should€have€been€excluded€because€the€prejudicial€effect€of€suchÍtestimony€far€outweighed€any€probative€value€it€might€contain.€€Specifically,€theÏdefendant€complains€that€Officer€Berryman€should€not€have€been€allowed€to€testify€thatÏthe€defendant€told€him€that€he€had€purchased€large€amounts€of€cocaine€from€LeeÏStaples.Ìà àÌà àà àFirst,€we€note€that€the€defendantððs€statements€were€a€party€admission,Ïwhich€is€a€hearsay€exception€under€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€803(1.2).2.€€UnderÏthis€exception,€a€statement€offered€against€a€party€that€is€ð ðððthe€partyððs€own€statement€inÏeither€an€individual€or€a€representative€capacityðð€is€admissible€hearsay.€€This€meansÏthat€any€assertion€a€party€spoke,€wrote,€or€did€may€be€used€against€that€party€as€anÏadmission.ðð€€NEIL€P.€COHEN,€SARAH€Y.€SHEPPEARD€and€DONALD€F.€PAINE,ÏTENNESSEE€LAW€OF€EVIDENCE,€at€513„515€(3d€ed.€1995).€€In€the€case€at€hand,€theÏtestimony€in€question€relates€to€information€that€the€defendant€directly€told€OfficerÏBerryman.€€Therefore,€under€Rule€803(1.2)(A),€the€defendantððs€statements€areÏadmissible.€Ìà àÌà àà àUnder€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€404(a),€evidence€of€a€personððsÏcharacter€is€not€admissible€to€prove€the€person€acted€in€accordance€with€that€characterÏat€a€particular€time.€The€effect€of€this€general€rule€though€is€greatly€diminished€by€theÏexceptions€stated€in€Rule€404(b).€€Rule€404(b)€allows€other€crimes,€wrongs,€or€acts€toÏbe€introduced€for€purposes€other€than€to€prove€character.€€The€other€act€may€beÏadmitted€ð ðto€prove€such€issues€as€motive,€intent,€knowledge,€absence€of€mistake€orÏaccident,€common€scheme€or€plan,€identity,€completion€of€the€story,€opportunity,€andÍpreparation.ðð€€COHEN,€SHEPPEARD€and€PAINE,€òòsupraóó,€at€169.€€œThe›€theory€behindÏthis€exception€is€that€ð ðððother€actðð€evidence€is€not€banned€by€the€rule€barring€characterÏevidence€because€the€other€acts€are€not€used€to€prove€that€a€person€acted€inÏconformity€with€character...€€Rather,€the€other€acts€are€used€for€some€non„characterÏissue,€such€as€proof€of€motive€œor›€common€scheme€or€plan.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€170.€€Under€RuleÏ404(b),€when€assessing€whether€certain€evidence€is€admissible€under€Rule€404(b)€theÏcourt€must€first€hold€a€jury€out€hearing€upon€the€request€of€either€party.€€Here,€theÏdefendant€failed€to€object€to€the€testimony€or€to€request€a€hearing€on€the€probativeÏvalue€of€such€testimony.Ìà àÌà àà àRule€36(a)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€requires€thatÏin€order€for€a€party€to€be€granted€relief,€the€party€must€ð ðtake€whatever€action€wasÏreasonably€available€to€prevent€or€nullify€the€harmful€effect€of€the€error.ðð€€T.R.A.P.Ï36(a).€€If€the€party€fails€to€do€so,€the€claim€is€considered€to€be€waived.€€This€waiverÏprovision€was€explicitly€extended€to€Rule€404(b)€claims€in€the€case€of€òòState€v.ÏCopennyóó€in€which€this€Court€held€that€the€appellant€waived€the€issue€by€failing€toÏmake€a€timely€objection.€òòState€v.€Copennyóó,€888€S.W.2d€450,€456€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1993).€€Ìà àÌà àà àIn€the€case€at€hand,€the€defendant€clearly€waived€any€Rule€404(b)€claimÏhe€may€have€had.€€The€defense€in€its€brief€alludes€to€the€fact€that€œdefense›€counsel€didÏnot€request€a€jury€out€hearing€on€the€admissibility€of€Officer€Berrymanððs€testimony.€ÏMoreover,€there€was€no€objection€to€the€testimony.€€In€fact,€it€was€not€raised€until€theÍdefendantððs€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€This€inaction€with€respect€to€Rule€404(b)€constitutesÏa€waiver,€and€thus,€the€defendantððs€claim€is€lost.€€T.R.A.P.€36(a).€Therefore,€this€issue€isÏwithout€merit.€ÌÌà àIn€conclusion,€Counts€Two,€Five,€and€Eight€are€affirmed,€and€Counts€One,ÏThree,€Four,€Six,€and€Seven€are€reversed€and€dismissed.€€This€case€is€remanded€toÏthe€trial€court€for€proceedings€consistent€with€œthis€opinion.€€€€€€€€€€€›Ò ° ÒÒ ° ÒœÌÌÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àREX€HENRY€OGLE,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌ________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGE›